Does anyone else feel like the ACS (American Community Survey) is a blatant invasion of privacy? What could the Census Bureau possibly need with the amount of time it takes me to get to work? Or with what type of work I do? This is insane.

Has anyone else thrown this thing away or told them to piss up a rope?

ACS wrote:The American Community Survey (ACS) is an ongoing survey that provides data every year -- giving communities the current information they need to plan investments and services. Information from the survey generates data that help determine how more than $400 billion in federal and state funds are distributed each year.

To help communities, state governments, and federal programs, we ask about:

•age•sex•race•family and relationships

•income and benefits•health insurance•education•veteran status

•disabilities•where you work and how you get there•where you live and how much you pay for some essentials

All this detail is combined into statistics that are used to help decide everything from school lunch programs to new hospitals.

The AG department send us very intrusive surveys all the time; at first I refused but after being bullied by the fact that by "law", I have to fill it out, I complied. The form does say that by law, I must fill it out, but no where does it say I have to be honest. If your ever searching AG stats and wonder who the 12 year old black girl with a handicap that own 300 acres of citrus trees in NW PA is, that's me.

assateague wrote:I lie like a mother******. Same thing with the census.

When the last census was done, I was acting president of my fraternity for the summer while my predecessor was out of the country.They came around and I had to fill the damn thing out for 20 people, because they considered me the head of the house hold.

There are only two types of people in the world, those who love duck hunting and those who never have duck hunted.

go get the bird wrote:Does anyone else feel like the ACS (American Community Survey) is a blatant invasion of privacy? What could the Census Bureau possibly need with the amount of time it takes me to get to work? Or with what type of work I do? This is insane.

Has anyone else thrown this thing away or told them to piss up a rope?

ACS wrote:The American Community Survey (ACS) is an ongoing survey that provides data every year -- giving communities the current information they need to plan investments and services. Information from the survey generates data that help determine how more than $400 billion in federal and state funds are distributed each year.

To help communities, state governments, and federal programs, we ask about:

•age•sex•race•family and relationships

•income and benefits•health insurance•education•veteran status

•disabilities•where you work and how you get there•where you live and how much you pay for some essentials

All this detail is combined into statistics that are used to help decide everything from school lunch programs to new hospitals.

I deal with census data quite a bit. It seems intrusive, and is to some point. I've had to explain this to lots of old timers that argue the same thing. Many things get based off census data - grants, funding for your community through allocations, HUD funding etc.

They also use the data for GIS quite a bit to. For example, DOT is looking at raising the speed limit from 65 to 70. They could look at commute time to work, amount of traffic in a given radius, with age of drivers and accidents in the same radius and make realizations off of this. Just one more tool to make rational and educated decisions.

Census and polls. I am with AT on this one. I lie my butt off. On the census, I am a afro asian american with 12 kids and I make $32 a year. I don't commute to work.

Polls are hilarious. They are always worded in such a manner that I cannot answer all the questions honestly. I figure if they are going to ask me to lie, I am going to help them out. I answer everything exactly opposite of what I believe and then tell them at the end their poll and my answers are complete crap. Somehow over the last few years the pollsters have stopped calling.

OmegaRed wrote:I deal with census data quite a bit. It seems intrusive, and is to some point. I've had to explain this to lots of old timers that argue the same thing. Many things get based off census data - grants, funding for your community through allocations, HUD funding etc.

They also use the data for GIS quite a bit to. For example, DOT is looking at raising the speed limit from 65 to 70. They could look at commute time to work, amount of traffic in a given radius, with age of drivers and accidents in the same radius and make realizations off of this. Just one more tool to make rational and educated decisions.

So, basically, it is a tool which enables the government to do all those things they like to do, which are not empowered to them by the Constitution. Gotcha.

WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.

OmegaRed wrote:I deal with census data quite a bit. It seems intrusive, and is to some point. I've had to explain this to lots of old timers that argue the same thing. Many things get based off census data - grants, funding for your community through allocations, HUD funding etc.

They also use the data for GIS quite a bit to. For example, DOT is looking at raising the speed limit from 65 to 70. They could look at commute time to work, amount of traffic in a given radius, with age of drivers and accidents in the same radius and make realizations off of this. Just one more tool to make rational and educated decisions.

So, basically, it is a tool which enables the government to do all those things they like to do, which are not empowered to them by the Constitution. Gotcha.

Speed limits are not in the constitution? Darn. There goes the credibility of the forefathers.

OmegaRed wrote:I deal with census data quite a bit. It seems intrusive, and is to some point. I've had to explain this to lots of old timers that argue the same thing. Many things get based off census data - grants, funding for your community through allocations, HUD funding etc.

They also use the data for GIS quite a bit to. For example, DOT is looking at raising the speed limit from 65 to 70. They could look at commute time to work, amount of traffic in a given radius, with age of drivers and accidents in the same radius and make realizations off of this. Just one more tool to make rational and educated decisions.

So, basically, it is a tool which enables the government to do all those things they like to do, which are not empowered to them by the Constitution. Gotcha.

Exactly.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 4:

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

Since you have your copy of the Constitution handy, maybe you could show me where it says the federal government is supposed to set speed limits, provide housing, issue money for sidewalks and a library in Davenport, Iowa, or build a playground in Tucson.

Thank you.

WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.

assateague wrote:Since you have your copy of the Constitution handy, maybe you could show me where it says the federal government is supposed to set speed limits, provide housing, issue money for sidewalks and a library in Davenport, Iowa, or build a playground in Tucson.

Thank you.

Ooooo Ooooo...I (no) the answer.

There are only two types of people in the world, those who love duck hunting and those who never have duck hunted.

assateague wrote:Since you have your copy of the Constitution handy, maybe you could show me where it says the federal government is supposed to set speed limits, provide housing, issue money for sidewalks and a library in Davenport, Iowa, or build a playground in Tucson.

Thank you.

You were military. Guess you don't support paying troops with federal dollars. And surely not a pension for 20 years of service.

As did the citizens in Christs time by each going to his own city of birth.

As did all good Nazi's

As do all good citizens of communist countries

America is not based on following every little rule some beaureucrat makes Ohio. We were founded in defiance of tryanny and government over regulation. When the sytem is corrupted a responsible citizen does everything in their power to confound, confuse, slow, and replace that system with one that works and represents them properly. I for one do not believe in or support a vast majority of what the Federal government is involved in. Quite frankly most of it is not within their powers to regulate under the Constitution.

ohioboy wrote:You were military. Guess you don't support paying troops with federal dollars. And surely not a pension for 20 years of service.

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;To provide and maintain a Navy;

Article 1, Section 8.

You sure you're a history teacher?

So the pension part is where? And what about the two years part? Drones are not in there. Air Force? Submarines?

Either it is a living document or you better not be on those roads or sidewalks. You can just stay on the public-oops, public lands are often subsidized by federal money-ok public parks and lands are out. It's a living document. I think best thing ever written.

Oh, and I am a teacher. You were military? Why? You seem to have a disdain for most everything american. Why support and defend it?

As did the citizens in Christs time by each going to his own city of birth.

As did all good Nazi's

As do all good citizens of communist countries

America is not based on following every little rule some beaureucrat makes Ohio. We were founded in defiance of tryanny and government over regulation. When the sytem is corrupted a responsible citizen does everything in their power to confound, confuse, slow, and replace that system with one that works and represents them properly. I for one do not believe in or support a vast majority of what the Federal government is involved in. Quite frankly most of it is not within their powers to regulate under the Constitution.

Then do something.

Don't like the rules change them. The system is designed for citizen input is it not? You playing games on a survey is just dumb. That is what a 14 year old girl does. We get to shoot more or less ducks depending on who and how surveys are filled out. I do every one I can. Even private ones. I like to have input in my world.

assateague wrote:Since you have your copy of the Constitution handy, maybe you could show me where it says the federal government is supposed to set speed limits, provide housing, issue money for sidewalks and a library in Davenport, Iowa, or build a playground in Tucson.

Thank you.

Um...that's why they delegate power and allocate funding to the state governments, and the state to local governments. Get a clue how the system works omnipotent one. Now it's your turn to pull out some random factoid and some random (non meaningful to the conversation) example about this one time at band camp.

As Ohio said, continue to curb your fellow citizens by incorrectly representing your area. Hopefully it removes grant monies from your community - obviously it's not being used on education. Carry on...

ohioboy wrote:You were military. Guess you don't support paying troops with federal dollars. And surely not a pension for 20 years of service.

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;To provide and maintain a Navy;

Article 1, Section 8.

You sure you're a history teacher?

But they are not helping me here in Poolesville. Ergo not needed. That is your argument.

Lets be clear, other parts of the country help out others in other ways. Yes?

No, it's not. And I'll thank you not to erroneously frame my argument.

I said this:

assateague wrote:So, basically, it is a tool which enables the government to do all those things they like to do, which are not empowered to them by the Constitution. Gotcha

From which you got this:

ohioboy wrote:But they are not helping me here in Poolesville. Ergo not needed. That is your argument.

I never mentioned need. I never mentioned Poolesville. I never mentioned local help. What I DID mention was the Constitution. I support the federal government acting on, and being responsible for, exactly those things it was chartered to act on and be responsible for, no more, no less.

You replied

ohioboy wrote:You were military. Guess you don't support paying troops with federal dollars. And surely not a pension for 20 years of service.

To which I corrected your misguided belief by pointing out that raising and paying an Army WAS, in fact, an explicitly stated enumerated power.

ohioboy wrote:So the pension part is where?

In every defense allocation bill. Part of the "raising and funding of the armies".

ohioboy wrote:And what about the two years part?

The defense budget is 100% funded through a biannual omnibus defense bill. This must be passed every two years, rather than in perpetuity. Know why? Because the Constitution says that this is the way it must be done. This is PRECISELY why there is so much pork and wrangling in the defense bill- because every senator and representative knows that it MUST be passed every two years, or the military closes for business. If it could be passed for 10 or 20 years, or longer, it would not be the vehicle for pork which it has become.

But the fact remains that the defense authorization bills must be passed every two years. Sorry you didn't know that.

ohioboy wrote:Drones are not in there.

No specific weapon systems are in there. It is part of the "raising and supporting armies" provision. I'm not certain what your point is. The Constitution states that funds for the military are authorized every two years. It doesn't state what kind of guns they may buy with it. Again, I would expect a history teacher to know this.

ohioboy wrote:Air Force?

This is the only portion where you may have a leg to stand on, but it's not much of a leg. The Air Force was originally a part of the Army, the Army Air Corps, so it fell under the "armies" portion. And as for the airplanes, that would fall under the specific weapon systems, which I just talked about.

Although it was created as a part of the Department of Defense, and could be viewed as a "weapon system". If the argument is going to be taken that since the Constitution doesn't mention airplanes and an Air Force, then the existence of the Air Force doesn't fall under Article 1, Section 8, the logical extension of that would be that freedom of speech doesn't extend to television, radio, or the internet, since they weren't in there, either. But the Air Force most certainly is part of the common defense, something which cannot be provided on a local basis.

ohioboy wrote:Submarines?

See Article 1, Section 8- "the Navy". That should just about cover "submarines". If not, the discussion of "weapon systems" above certainly will.

ohioboy wrote:Either it is a living document or you better not be on those roads or sidewalks. You can just stay on the public-oops, public lands are often subsidized by federal money-ok public parks and lands are out. It's a living document. I think best thing ever written.

This doesn't even make a little bit of sense. Maybe it's just poorly written, but there is no logical connection between your points, here. Your argument seems to be that if not for the federal government, there would be no sidewalks, and that the only way we have sidewalks is if the Constitution is a living document, but I don't think you're that stupid.

ohioboy wrote:Oh, and I am a teacher. You were military? Why? You seem to have a disdain for most everything american. Why support and defend it?

I retract my last statement.

WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.

I don't know how I would describe the system as originally designed, nor how I would describe the evolution of that system. But the federal government is most definitely not designed for citizen input, whatever that is supposed to mean. You can show up at a town council meeting and speak your mind, that would seem to meet the definition, but state and federal are not. Primarily because it is totally impractical and that was long before there were over 300 million people. Campaign finance and judicial activism and so many things have since designed the system for the party machines and away from the representatives of the people and of the state legislatures.

I think lying about the number of people is and should be criminal. Is it OK for community organizers like Obama to jack up the numbers so his community has more representatives in Congress and more electoral votes in the Presidential election? Of course not, but turn about is fair play, so don't complain when they beat you at your own game.

As far as the other stuff unrelated to apportionment, it is a totally different question and I see the value of it, but much of that value results from the government doing things they should never be doing in the first place. Knowledge is power, so are you empowering the beast or helping your government be more efficient? Obviously some of both and can't argue against whatever decision people make.

A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.

I don't know how I would describe the system as originally designed, nor how I would describe the evolution of that system. But the federal government is most definitely not designed for citizen input, whatever that is supposed to mean. You can show up at a town council meeting and speak your mind, that would seem to meet the definition, but state and federal are not. Primarily because it is totally impractical and that was long before there were over 300 million people. Campaign finance and judicial activism and so many things have since designed the system for the party machines and away from the representatives of the people and of the state legislatures.

I think lying about the number of people is and should be criminal. Is it OK for community organizers like Obama to jack up the numbers so his community has more representatives in Congress and more electoral votes in the Presidential election? Of course not, but turn about is fair play, so don't complain when they beat you at your own game.

As far as the other stuff unrelated to apportionment, it is a totally different question and I see the value of it, but much of that value results from the government doing things they should never be doing in the first place. Knowledge is power, so are you empowering the beast or helping your government be more efficient? Obviously some of both and can't argue against whatever decision people make.

Without the us vs. them mentality - I can assure you - census data has an effect on everyone, and helps government (state and local as well) and private sector to try and make informed decisions. If I'm trying to determine if I should locate a machine shop in a certain town, I can go on american fact finder 2 (the census data hub) and relatively easily find out how many machine shops in a block group, what their gross income is, population, races, etc. and infer whether or not it may be a good spot to locate my new business. It's not just the federal government / big brother spying apparatus that you guys are making it out to be.